Opinion: Let the citizens define Boulder’s future


Recently a friend told me that the Boulder city government is going to use “working groups” to provide input to its long term housing plan. “Working groups” are useful to design and implement programs. But for housing, working groups would be putting the cart before the horse. The first step, and it’s a big one, is to have a vision for the future of Boulder, one that addresses housing, but as a part of whole. And it needs to be a vision that has the support of the vast majority of Boulder citizens, not just of a few elected officials and city staffers.
The “working group” concept came from a 2009 meeting of some 40 Boulderites who were not satisfied with the progress being made in the use of Boulder’s carbon tax, passed in 2006. The most important recommendation from the meeting was to form groups to work on specific aspects of the energy efficiency programs. These groups were to be open to whoever wanted to participate. The point was to include citizens who had expertise but not much time, had different perspectives, or had little interest in going through some involved city selection process. The concept proved highly successful. Some of the program ideas that emerged, like the energy advisor and one-stop shopping, have become standard in many parts of the country.
The working group approach functioned well then because there was general agreement in the community about the overall direction for the energy efficiency programs. It also worked well more recently in evaluating the modeling for the municipal electric utility. Again, there was agreement about the job that needed to be done.
The situation with housing in Boulder is entirely different. There is little agreement beyond the obvious: Housing is getting more expensive; the city policy of encouraging employment growth is exacerbating this price inflation as well as traffic congestion; and trying to play catch-up by encouraging yet more housing has its own set of costs. So the working group notion is premature.
First, we need to have a serious discussion about our future, including job growth, zoning, transportation, water supply, etc., and keep at it until the community consensus is clear.
This brings me to the 1993 Integrated Planning Process (IPP). This was the only time I know of when the council actually went out to the citizens and really interrogated them/us about what they/we wanted (I was on the council then and intimately involved with this, thus the dual pronouns). Another friend recently found the IPP Goals/Actions Items memo that laid out the conclusions from the process. This memo is illuminating, both in the breadth of the issues it addresses and in the lack of “silos” — the IPP was about integrating all city departments’ goals and work plans, not about working separately on one or another as is the current trend.
Four or five council members met with city staff in open meetings for some months to design the public input process for the IPP. Citizens received detailed information about the city’s current situation and possible future development scenarios. Then they participated in surveys using “black boxes,” a pre-laptop/pre-tablet computer device, that allowed easy recording and analysis of the responses. (Remember, this was 20-plus years ago.) City staff took these devices to public meetings, to the Crossroad Mall, and to every neighborhood and group meeting where they could get people to stand still long enough to complete the survey.
The results were overwhelming in their agreement. As I remember, there was about 80 percent support for a future of very carefully managed growth, including “target maximums” for both population and employment. Further, and I quote the report, “The concept of ‘no net negative impact’ is proposed as a condition of growth up to the target maxima … new development will be expected to off-set its impacts on a community scale to the extent possible and reasonable, and remaining impacts will be addressed by city programs. At the same time, impacts could be felt disproportionately within particular neighborhoods or subcommunities and the cumulative effects of new development will also be off-set to a reasonable extent within a neighborhood or subcommuity; … Impacts to be measured include air pollution, water pollution, noise and traffic congestion.”
What happened after all this effort and involvement? Essentially nothing. So we need to go through this process again. But this time, the community should get what it wants.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more